Dispute - Neighbour's Large Tree Completely Shadowing My Home

jlim87 on 03/10/2019 - 00:51

Hey guys,

So my neighbour has a massive 3 storey high tree that is overshadowing my backyard. I get very little sun because of this, and even my other neighbour is affected by this. A friend said that they had a similar tree removed from their home for about $3-4k in the past so I assume that's a ballpark figure for a large tree.

I've mentioned this to them 6 months ago but they haven't done anything. I know the next step is to get the council involved which I will. I just don't have an extra $2k to chip in (if it comes to that) right now so I'm not in much of a hurry. I just want to prepare and do my due diligence in case anything happens. I've had lots of branches fall into my backyard over the years and I was thinking if it ever falls and damages my property, I wanna make sure I've at least put in the steps to showcase that I've informed them about it already so at least they're held responsible.

So my question is:-
- from a legal standpoint, lets say that trees gets hit by lightning one day, falls and damages my home, and they had prior notice of this very large tree that they didn't do anything about, who's liable for paying for damages?
- does anyone have experiences to share on how they resolved this issue if they encountered something similar?

Home & Garden

Comments

  • Laziofogna on 03/10/2019 - 09:57

    Shade in Australia is a gift from God. Home insurance will cover any problem of course.

    • OzzyOzbourne on 05/10/2019 - 11:53

      Including when a falling branch kills you

  • lvagg59 on 03/10/2019 - 09:58
    +1

    I'm not sure if it's different in each state but in Queensland if a neighbours tree damages the shared fence then they pay the total for repair/replacement.

  • DashCam AKA Rolts on 03/10/2019 - 10:03
    +2

    In some states, trees of that size, native or exotic can be protected under heritage acts, and thus protected with substantial legal penalties for removing or damaging them.

  • poohduck on 03/10/2019 - 10:15
    +13

    It's nice to see some people here who don't want to get rid of a tree.

    • afoveht on 03/10/2019 - 11:58
      +10

      Yeah, it makes me almost wanna cry when I drive to work and see yet another 50+year old eucalypt or even a deciduous / introduced tree being taken down. Got real risk for personal or substantial property damage? Sure, get rid of it. Don't like raking the leaves or don't want stains on your driveway? Shoulda thought of your precious needs before you decided to create the situation.

      • supersabroso on 04/10/2019 - 13:58

        That's so selfish, Aussies are dying every year due to trees falling on them left right and centre during storms or windy conditions. People's lives matter more than some tree!
        Imagine if your beloved got crushed by the 50 year old tree you love so much. You and the kids would never recover.

        • digitalbargain on 04/10/2019 - 18:04
          +1

          At risk of sounding insensitive.. bwahahaha.. 'Aussies are dying left right and centre, because trees'

          Irrational response to living on earth, akin to the whole shark thing everytime that happens

        • afoveht on 04/10/2019 - 19:35
          +1

          People's lives matter more than some tree!

          What part of

          Got real risk for personal or substantial property damage? Sure, get rid of it.

          is unclear?

        • Laziofogna on 05/10/2019 - 14:11

          Ban cars too then, they kill more than anything. The rest of your rant I could not understand

        • Musing Outloud on 05/10/2019 - 14:17

          Is that you Pauline?

  • HighAndDry on 03/10/2019 - 10:31
    +7

    Trees are naturally occurring objects in nature which are opaque and will block the transmission of light through the space which it occupies.

    • [Deactivated] on 03/10/2019 - 17:22
      +4

      Yes but OP wants this tree to be towed outside of nature.

      • Faulty on 03/10/2019 - 21:15

        So what's out there exactly, Senator Timothy-1?

  • dcep on 03/10/2019 - 10:32

    As others said, you already know tree is there when you 1st moved in.

    If you want to be a (profanity), then get up a ladder and pee over the root with engine oil

  • Pumpkin_rrr on 03/10/2019 - 11:00

    We have exactly the same problem. Neighbour has lots of tress and some even growing over the fence.
    We moved in 12 years ago, probably talked to them 3 years after (getting worried the safety of kids while playing in backyard, and our vege wont grow in shade) and they did prune it. Then over the years they stopped talking to us and we havent approach the subject. Their trees are growing and we could only throw the broken branches back to them.
    Our other concerns are safety, perhaps should ask Energex what's the height limit and how to ascertain whether those trees pose any problem in times of storm season.
    Some of the trees overhangs above hubby's shed and leaves fall onto the roof and block the gutter.
    In theory we can trim of any branches that "overshot" our boundary but they are very very tall and we cant do it unless we do it from their land….. Sigh….

    • jlim87 on 03/10/2019 - 14:23
      -4

      Thanks for sharing, and yeah it's a lot more complicated than people think. Lots of idiots in this thread going "oh the tree was there first". It's a nuisance to our use of our land and property as per dispute's Victoria's terminology of what a nuisance is. I haven't minded this for the last couple of years but instead of paying $1k+ to cut branches on my end, I'll be chipping in to have the tree removed if their keen as well.

      • Randolph Duke on 04/10/2019 - 08:58
        +2

        What’s complicated about the tree been there when you moved in? You just don’t like the tree, it’s plainly obvious.

      • [Deactivated] on 04/10/2019 - 10:15
        +6

        Lots of idiots in this thread…

        Just because there is a really big one doesn't make it plural.

  • wallet72 on 03/10/2019 - 11:14
    +1

    in regard to trimming the tree, our council doesn't allow you to throw the branches back. If you trim the branches hanging over your property then it's your rubbish, not theirs, and they can take action against you if you throw them back over the fence.

    • HighAndDry on 03/10/2019 - 16:08
      +1

      Makes sense - if it's theirs you wouldn't be allowed to cut it in the first place. If you can, then it's not theirs and you can't dump it on their land.

      • [Deactivated] on 03/10/2019 - 21:43
        +1

        Depends on the council/state.

        Overhanging branches are technically their property but invading into your space, so you're allowed to cut the overhanging branches but need to give it back to the owner where I'm at.

  • tsunamisurfer on 03/10/2019 - 11:16
    +10

    I am an owner of a huge gum tree on my property, it is also called the Widowmaker.

    Twice it has self pruned with killer branches.

    I have considered getting rid of it but I do like the shade it puts on the house, the house is cool even in summer.

    Unfortunately, my council has put a protected tag on it and removal is not allowed and they won't provide an answer if it becomes a safety risk whether that is grounds.

    I keep the tree trimmed costing thousands to minimise the risk to myself and neighbours.

    Having said all that people that move into properties then complain about things already there are a special breed of stupid. This is like living next to a park and enjoying it's ammenities then complain about people exercising in the morning, or living close to an airport and complaining the flight path is over their roof at 3am.

      • [Deactivated] on 03/10/2019 - 17:23
        +12

        But you can't get rid of it later, it's not your tree.

          • brendanm on 04/10/2019 - 07:01
            +5

            @jlim87: I'd you offered me "compensation" for removing a large tree from my backyard, I would simply laugh at you. You moved in knowing it's there, the people who own the tree like it. Deal with it.

            • [Deactivated] on 04/10/2019 - 10:21
              +6

              @brendanm: Anyone else wondering what cultural background OP is from where it is common sense not to buy next to airport if one isn't tolerant of noise pollution but buying next a big tree belonging to someone else awards one the rights to remove said tree.

              It is most fascinating.

      • Randolph Duke on 04/10/2019 - 09:01
        +4

        It’s incredible you actually think it’s acceptable to purchase a place knowing the neighbours have trees, and then you have any entitlement to try get it removed because you don’t like it.

        Get over yourself, the world isn’t all about you mate.

      • tomsco on 04/10/2019 - 09:33
        +5

        But they may still buy a house that has a tree on it, cause it's a smaller problem that they can get rid of in the future.

        It's your neighbours tree.

        Buying a house with the intention that you will have another persons property altered from the current state is very entitled.

    • TEER3X on 03/10/2019 - 16:19

      Yep council did the same to me, I wish I could send them the bill for the damage the tree caused when I came down, but that's the cost of living I suppose

      • This Guy on 03/10/2019 - 20:35
        +1

        but that's the cost of living I suppose

        I read that quickly as:

        I wish I could send them the bill for the damage the tree caused when I came down, but what's the cost of a living spouse.

  • HardlyCharly on 03/10/2019 - 13:14
    +14

    This post, and you, are ridiculous. Complaining about shade in one of the hottest climates on the planet? About a beautiful big tree? Wanting the neighbours to pay THOUSANDS to remove it because of YOU? What right do you have to be so entitled? Disgusting.

    • try2bhelpful on 03/10/2019 - 13:53

      Over reacting much. If it is winter having a tree that blocks light and heat can be unpleasant Having a tree that might be a danger to your house is a issue, particularly as it looks like insurance T&Cs mean you might need to claim off your own insurance company if the tree comes down. Do you want to dial back the judgemental hyperbole a tad, butch. The questions, and issues, are legitimate - particularly as this tree has already dropped branches. There has been a few campers that have been killed by having trees drop branches on them. We should keep our discussions civil and helpful.

      • TEER3X on 03/10/2019 - 16:18

        Had a neighbour's tree partially collapse and cause $1000 damage to my property. I had to foot the bill.

        No way I would want a tree to come down because of too much shade, I would rather move.

        • foolsgold on 05/10/2019 - 14:57
          +2

          If the tree is dangerous, then by all means it should be removed, trimmed back or made safe. However just because a tree is large doesn't mean it is going to fall over.

          Your argument is so ridiculous you could say with everything:
          - A fence which falls down could cause damage or death, so you going to ask the neighbour at their expense to remove a fence?
          - The road in front of your house could welcome a dangerous driver who could plough into you, should we remove that too?
          - A gas appliance built close to your house could explode
          - A window could shatter from you kicking a ball..

          these arguments are all as absurd. The biggest nuisance a tree causes is undermining footings of structures and foliage, asking someone to completely destroy a tree because of shade is ridiculous.

      • tsunamisurfer on 03/10/2019 - 15:12
        +14

        but when 2/3rds of it is completely shaded, making it completely unusable,

        Do you listen to yourself?

        Shaded = Completely unusable???

        Tonight my prayers will be for your neighbours to get better neighbours in the future.

        • try2bhelpful on 03/10/2019 - 15:20
          -1

          well, at least he doesn’t have you as a neighbour, he should be grateful for that.

          • HighAndDry on 03/10/2019 - 16:09
            +9

            @try2bhelpful: OP thinks a backyard being shaded makes it unusable. That's indefensibly asinine.

            • try2bhelpful on 03/10/2019 - 20:05
              -2

              @HighAndDry: And you are being completely OTT with your insults. From the perspective of some of the things he wants to do the yard is unusable. You can query his exaggeration without being obnoxious.

              • jlim87 on 03/10/2019 - 21:58
                -2

                @try2bhelpful: @try2bhelpful thanks. People get so pedantic and take figure of speeches out of context. It's totally within the law for me to cut all branches that grow over my side of the fence, but any suggestions to remove the tree makes me entitled. /shrugs

              • [Deactivated] on 04/10/2019 - 18:55

                @try2bhelpful:

                From the perspective of some of the things he wants to do the yard is unusable.

                …which he would have factored in the offer he made for the house when he bought it. A reasonable person would, anyway.

        • jlim87 on 03/10/2019 - 17:13
          -5

          Yes, completely unusable clothes hanger to dry clothes that don't get any direct sunlight. Just in case you didn't notice, I said completely unusable. Let's all be pedantic and focus on that because context doesn't matter.

          Glad to know your prayers are for my neighbours. Your life must be miserable and meaningless that you waste your prayers on random ozbargain people's neighbours.

          • tsunamisurfer on 03/10/2019 - 17:24
            +5

            @jlim87:

            Yes, completely unusable clothes hanger to dry clothes that don't get any direct sunlight.

            Thankfully I attended Primary School and learned about science and stuff.

            https://www.quora.com/Do-you-need-the-sun-for-water-to-evapo…

            • jlim87 on 03/10/2019 - 18:55
              -5

              @tsunamisurfer: I could also get one of those magical things they call a dryer and dry them indoor, and during the night! omg what a genius idea!

              You must be really fun at parties, the smarty who googles stuff and constantly wants to prove he's right. People have preferences on how they want to do things. Please get back to your top priority for the night and do those prayers for my neighbours.

              • [Deactivated] on 04/10/2019 - 12:07
                +1

                @jlim87: Are you angry that he proved you don't need sunlight for your outdoor washing line to dry clothes? And your insult was to call him smart like it's a vice?

                You just sound like a nasty person at this point and very entitled because your request is unreasonable and selfish.

            • rave75 on 04/10/2019 - 15:59

              @tsunamisurfer: Lol I bet the clothes will still dry, just takes longer. So it is not completely unusable. Just need to go back to primary school science, I guess.

        • [Deactivated] on 04/10/2019 - 09:04

          Do you listen to yourself?

          Shaded = Completely unusable???

          Tonight my prayers will be for your neighbours to get better neighbours in the future.

          To be fair, you don't know exactly where is OP located. In some regions of the world where certain climate conditions are met, when approximately 2/3 of relatively flat ground is shaded, mole people immigrate in swarms completely inhabiting whatever space available and are often territorial (depending on the exact species).

      • HighAndDry on 03/10/2019 - 16:10

        Does that make me ridiculous

        Yes.

      • Salty Pretzel on 03/10/2019 - 21:27
        +1

        Did you know it's actually better for your clothes to dry in the shade? Direct sun is not good on clothes.

        My clothes line is right next to my south wall so it gets no sun whatsoever. No issues with clothes drying. To say it is unusable is laughable.

        • jlim87 on 03/10/2019 - 21:33
          -4

          I could also use the dryer that I have, which I've been using for years to dry clothes.

          I just have a preference of wanting to dry certain things in sunlight when I want to, and have some sunlight in my backyard while enjoying a coffee. There isn't a need to get all pedantic over a figure of speech. Obviously it's still usable and technically you don't need the sun for drying things. Context matters.

          • tsunamisurfer on 03/10/2019 - 22:17
            +4

            @jlim87:

            but when 2/3rds of it is completely shaded, making it completely unusable,

            Later on….

            Obviously it's still usable

            What's changed in 7 hours may I ask?

            • [Deactivated] on 04/10/2019 - 10:25

              @tsunamisurfer: The tree grew another 30 feet and the crown is now shading the neighbour further down the street. The branches falling now reach terminal velocity causing it to shatter upon impact with branches along the way rather than simply displacing and then continue falling onto women and children.

          • [Deactivated] on 04/10/2019 - 12:13

            @jlim87:

            I just have a preference of wanting to dry certain things in sunlight

            Why? As others have said, it doesn't really make a difference to the drying process and in fact can permanently fade clothes. Your preference seems to be entirely "cos I wanna" and not based in any logical need at all. The coffee thing is more understandable, but this clothes drying business makes you sound like an entitled whinger.

            You don't need the sun to dry clothes. End of story. Stop using it as an excuse to try and cut someone's tree down when the real reason is you want to sit outside and enjoy some sunlight and maybe read a book.

      • foolsgold on 05/10/2019 - 15:09

        Although it is both worrying and hilarious that you believe that you are entitled to getting some one to remove a tree in their own back yard.
        Even if this was a building not a tree you would have no grounds to complain.

        a) A neighbour can, depending on circumstance, overshadow your Private Open Space providing that you have a minimum of 5 hours of natural light to 40 sqm of your back yard. You mentioned that 1/3 of your back yard has access to natural light, likely this is greater than 40sqm
        b) An existing structure doesn't need to comply, ie you can't retrospectively complain of a non-compliant structure.

  • dust on 03/10/2019 - 16:31
    +3

    If only trees provided us with the oxygen we need to breathe.

    • [Deactivated] on 03/10/2019 - 21:49
      +2

      And CO2 at night.

      Most of Earth's O2 actually comes from the ocean (phytoplankton)

      • [Deactivated] on 04/10/2019 - 11:30

        You sir/madam are technically correct.

        The best kind of correct.

  • Blargman2001 on 03/10/2019 - 20:05
    +1

    In SA removal of large trees regardless whether they are on private or public land is regulated. Removal of them without council approval is illegal. If it is deemed significant good luck getting it cut down without community consultation. I think some councils in Victoria are the same eg: https://www.monash.vic.gov.au/Building-Planning/Planning/Veg…

  • Kamsi on 03/10/2019 - 20:23
    -1

    I heard some people are so desperate that feed something to the tree and it dies gradually. Not something I condone but happen in my area.

  • Bystander on 03/10/2019 - 20:27
    -2

    Some years ago i received a letter from Council asking for comment on an application my neighbour had submitted for putting a second storey on their house. The house is hard up against the northern boundary of my home. I wrote to Council objecting on the grounds that I would lose significant "solar access". This was considered a valid claim and the application was rejected.

    So, in Sydney at least, raising the issue of loss of solar access with Council does carry some weight.

    Good luck!

    • jlim87 on 03/10/2019 - 21:39
      -1

      Thanks for sharing, it's a really good point and something I'll keep in mind. The sun goes behind the trees at 2:30pm or so, so it would affect my line of sight for solar access shall I ever install that in the future.

      I don't think it'll get to that since I'm actually happy to pay for the tree's removal but it's good to know. Thanks again for the useful insights!

      • Euphemistic on 04/10/2019 - 06:20
        +1

        It’s not really relevant as the tree is already there.

        In our local area you don’t get special consideration for solar access if you want to put solar panels on your roof. Trees cannot be simply removed to give you sunlight, there needs to be additional reasons, like the trees being unsafe.

    • thechemist on 03/10/2019 - 22:28
      +2

      how's this relevant? his neighbouring is not applying to council to plant a 8 Metre tree

      • Bystander on 04/10/2019 - 19:47

        I'm not referring to solar panels but the general amenity of your property. It's relevant because trees that were once not an issue can grow to sometimes become an issue.

        If a neighbours tree has grown to reduce the amenity of your property and restricts solar access it's a valid claim that can be used to request council to assist in making a determination that the tree should either be pruned or removed.

  • ovictor on 03/10/2019 - 20:37
    +4

    I thought this was a joke, but people are very serious about this tree being a nuisance. Trees not only give you oxygen, shade, cover from wind&storms, but also support the ground from eroding and keep other things alive around them. Have you noticed how there's not many things that are alive in a desert and lots of animals in a forrest?

    Im sorry but that tree was there before you moved in. And it will probably be there after you leave and that's the way it should be! If you want to avoid living things, maybe move into an apartment or get a house in Coober Pedy, there's lots of sun there. Otherwise, be friendly with your neighbour and learn to live amongst living things - you're lucky to have all that from my perspective.

    • jlim87 on 03/10/2019 - 21:46
      -1

      There's tons of trees in my front yard, trees in my neighbour's backyard too, and heaps in my leafy neighbourhood. I just don't like that one tree that is next to his fence and way too overgrown and completely towering my home.

      I have nothing against trees, but not all trees are where it should be and can grow and disrupt property or whatever. I'm entitled to trim off everything on my side of the fence (which is the larger portion of the tree), but with that cost to do so, I'm contributing that fund to the removal of it.

  • EmCKay on 03/10/2019 - 21:05
    +1

    I can't get past the OP calling a clothesline a clothes hanger!

    • jlim87 on 03/10/2019 - 21:48
      -1

      LOL! Technically it's a clothes hoist I was referring to. I blame the fact that I haven't got to use one for so many years for the mishap.

  • Lunarboogie on 03/10/2019 - 21:07

    Is the tree that is making your backyard 'unusable' doing the same to your neighbour's yard? Yet he doesn't seem to have a problem with it. Do you think perhaps the real problem in this story is you? Accept what you can't change.

    • jlim87 on 03/10/2019 - 21:53
      -3

      No it's not really affecting him since he's backyard is way bigger. It's at the corner of his backyard and his pool is on the opposite end. Is the real problem me? I don't think so. There isn't actually any problem in this story, just questions I had which smarter people have kindly answered. This tree will be removed and tree huggers will have to shed another tear. It's just a cost of an arborist, best case scenario I pay half, worst case scenario I'll cover it.

      • thechemist on 03/10/2019 - 22:39
        +1

        It would help if you had a good relationship with neighbour before hand. Don't think by covering the full cost the neighbour will allow and consent to it being done. Also you should actually call the council as Natives of that height would often have protections on it.

        Whatever you do be prepared for neighbour to do nothing as your neighbour has all the power and direct the whole process. Just remember that when you deal with the neighbour

  • [Deactivated] on 03/10/2019 - 21:52
    +4

    I feel bad for OP, it's legitimate concern.

    Clearly most people here don't own their own homes, just wait until you get out of your parents' house…

    • thechemist on 03/10/2019 - 22:41
      +4

      don't feel bad. Anyone who is "out of parents home" knows when buying property the most important trees to look at is your neighbours because you can't do shit all about them

      • [Deactivated] on 03/10/2019 - 22:53
        +1

        Oh so people do admit how important trees are in terms of how it affects a property?

        The issue is not that people are saying you can't do shit about them (which you certainly can as per Disputes Victoria and Common Law), it's that they think it's a non-issue in the first place. Which makes sense if you've been living off your parents the whole time and don't understand how it can be of great concern.

        • smalltime0 on 04/10/2019 - 03:57

          The OP is talking about his rights whilst ignoring his neighbour's property rights.
          The OP's rights start and end at the fence line.

          • [Deactivated] on 04/10/2019 - 11:06
            +1

            @smalltime0: He's not ignoring, he's asking for what his rights are because he knows the tree is not on his land.

  • DemocracyManifest on 03/10/2019 - 22:29

    Don't remove it chip in with your neighbour to get it trimmed down to the stump or a severe haircut, complete removal is too costly

  • Vote for Pedro on 04/10/2019 - 06:37
    +1

    While making no comments on this situation, isn’t it amazing how hard it is to do anything with trees on your own property, yet when the Government wants to put in a road or trams, boom, they’re gone.

  • chumlee on 04/10/2019 - 06:42

    Unless the tree is in poor health, legally it's difficult to blame your neighbour if lightning strikes it and the tree falls on your house

  • brendanm on 04/10/2019 - 07:04
    +5

    Well its 7:04 am and I'm all out of negs for the day :(

  • gimme on 04/10/2019 - 08:06

    Sane situation years ago. Council won't do anything unless there's imminent safety risk and good luck with that.

    1. Best option is to come to an agreement with neighbor. It'll cost you and not always easy. That's what I ended up doing after the original owner sold.

    2. You're allowed to cut branches on your side.

    That's provided you are legally allowed to cut the tree/branches in your area.

    • irony on 04/10/2019 - 08:24
      +2

      Coucil will likely do something…
      They are likely to tell you it is illegal to remove it.
      I have a neighbour who desperately want to remove a tree in their own yard. ACT Gov says NO, the neighbour is limited to pruning it 10%, else fines from $1,000 to $200,000 apply. It may be that your neighbour can't remove the tree even if they want to.

      https://www.accesscanberra.act.gov.au/app/answers/detail/a_i…
      https://www.tccs.act.gov.au/city-living/trees/information_ab…

      Not a Melbourne reference, but look before you lop.

      • tryagain on 06/10/2019 - 16:05

        Yep, most councils have a tree preservation order. Given the size of the tree mentioned here it would almost certainly be protected, even if the neighbour wanted it removed he probably wouldn't be allowed too.

  • SnakeCasablanca on 04/10/2019 - 08:51
    +5

    Anyone else run out of neg votes on the entitled OP?

    • gimme on 04/10/2019 - 08:59
      +2

      No. The question is pretty low on the ozb entitlement scale

      • SnakeCasablanca on 04/10/2019 - 09:13
        +6

        Oh. Their question at the top is reasonable. It's reading their comments where you see the entitlement ooze out.

        • [Deactivated] on 04/10/2019 - 12:18
          +1

          My downvoted finger is now a little sore. Man, op is a bit of a nutter.

  • SpotTheOzzie on 04/10/2019 - 08:58

    OP I don't get you mate.

    You say the biggest problem here is your backyard is unusable because of the neighbours tree, which seems kind of odd to begin with. Everytime someone has asked you who was there first, you've blatantly dodged the question and thrown some irrelevant answer to it. Implying you know you're in the wrong here. Seriously though why buy in a place and complain it's noy usable, why should an existing neighbour be put out because the new kid on the block is entitled.

    The Romans had a great word for it; Ignoratio elenchi.

  • [Deactivated] on 04/10/2019 - 08:58

    You can ask the neighbour to cut off the branches that fall in your backyard or just do it yourself. That's about it. You cannot do anything about the tree. Same case happened in Judge Judy LOL

  • JuryWheel on 04/10/2019 - 09:37

    Id imagine that the only way you will get rid of it is if you pay the full amount for the removal, and the purchase/planting of replacement vegetation…AND the neighbour agrees. If it isnt negatively affecting their property, why would they pay anything?

  • [Deactivated] on 04/10/2019 - 10:05

    How old is the tree? Is it the neighbors tree or a tree on their property? Meaning does your neighbor have any control on it? Does it have a preservation order in place? Does the sun shade all year or just part? Is it native?
    Jeeesh …I wonder how humans survived all this time given all the trees.

  • mouarg on 04/10/2019 - 11:10
    +2

    Threads like these really go well with lunch.

  • setekh on 04/10/2019 - 11:14
    +2

    Im pretty sure if the tree is that big it was there first…..

  • arcticjuggernaut on 04/10/2019 - 11:19

    IMO unless you're willing to pay to remove the tree yourself and your neighbor is willing to let you do it you're out of luck. Maybe, if you're lucky they hate the tree also and may chip in also. Involving council will just piss your neighbors off. Maybe you could offer to replace the tree with something else also.

  • diddy50 on 04/10/2019 - 11:46
    +3

    That tree is worth many thousands to the value of the property.

    That tree is probably a protected tree by local council and can't be removed due to the size.

    You have home insurance if anything ever does happen with the tree.

    Overshadowing is subjective, and your opinion on its removal is your own and you have no legal right to get the tree removed.

    Speak to an arborist if you have worries about over hanging onto your property and what you are allowed to do.

    These massive trees are very much sought after in nicer suburbs. Oh well

  • [Deactivated] on 04/10/2019 - 11:58
    +1

    OP, sounds like you better just move - then you'll be happy, the neighbours will be happy and the tree will be happy (and will continue to survive, hopefully a long long time).

    When you moved in, you were aware trees grow, I presume?

    • dufflover on 05/10/2019 - 13:38

      Maybe he moved in from Thneedville.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join